The academic adjustment scale: measuring the adjustment of permanent resident or sojourner students
Article (Accepted Version)
http://sro.sussex.ac.uk
Anderson, Joel R, Guan, Yao and Koc, Yasin (2016) The academic adjustment scale: measuring the adjustment of permanent resident or sojourner students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 54. pp. 68-76. ISSN 0147-1767
This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/62062/
This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published version.
Copyright and reuse: Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University.
Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available.
Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way.
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
1
Author’s accepted copy on 13/07/2016
The academic adjustment scale: measuring the adjustment of permanent resident or
sojourner students.
Joel R. Anderson1,4
Yao Guan2
Yasin Koc3
1Faculty of Psychology and Education Science, University of Geneva, Switzerland.
2Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Florida, United States of America.
3School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
4Correspondence:
Faculté de Psychologie et des Sciences de l'Education (FPSE)
Université de Genève
Uni Mail - 40 Bd du Pont d'Arve
CH - 1205 Genève, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 379 8718; Fax: +41 22 379 93 19; email: [email protected]
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
2
Abstract
In this paper we developed and validated the Academic Adjustment Scale (AAS) - a
new scale for measuring the academic adjustment of individuals, which was
developed with a focus on student sojourners who temporarily relocate to a new
culture for the purpose of tertiary education. Exploratory factor analysis (Study 1)
demonstrated that the AAS comprises 9-items that highly and accurately factor onto
the three hypothesized subscales: academic lifestyle, academic achievement, and
academic motivation. We verified the structure using Confirmatory Factor Analyses
(Studies 1-2) while controlling for acquiescent responding. Evidence of the validity
(convergent, discriminant, criterion, known-groups, and face validities; Study 2), and
evidence of reliability (internal consistency: Studies 1-3; test-retest reliability: Study
3) suggest stable psychometric properties for this new measure. In summary, we
provide evidence for the validity and reliability of the AAS in permanent resident and
student sojourner samples, and present self-report findings by sojourner students that
this scale is preferred to existing academic adjustment scales.
Keywords: sojourner, student sojourner, permanent resident, student adjustment,
academic adjustment, AAS, scale construction.
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
3
The academic adjustment scale: measuring the adjustment of permanent resident or
sojourner students
The concepts of measuring and monitoring the cross-cultural adjustment of
sojourners (i.e., individuals residing in a foreign culture without intention of
permanent settlement; Church, 1982) are not new to psychology. Originating from
concepts of culture shock (Oberg, 1960), sojourner adjustment has contemporarily
been conceptualized as an outcome of inter-cultural relocation (Ward & Kennedy,
1993), and is typically considered in terms of stress and coping (see Berry, 1997;
Ward, 1996).1 Researchers have developed a series of psychometrically stable
measures to capture sojourner adjustment (e.g., Demes & Geeraert, 2014; Pedersen,
Neighbors, Larimer, & Lee, 2011). Individuals who reside abroad to pursue higher
education are student sojourners. This very specific case differs from other sojourners
in several important ways, including their goals, expectations upon them for success,
motivations for leaving home, and post-sojourn intentions.
An important component of a successful student sojourn is how they manage
their social, psychological, and scholarly challenges as they transition to tertiary
education. Processes around managing these challenges are broadly referred to as
academic adjustment (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994). Early research focused on
academic abilities, with the assumption that this was indicative of all aspects of
adjustment (Klineberg & Hull, 1979). However, researchers quickly realized that
academic performance was only a small component of this transition. Satisfaction
with the student lifestyle, management of expectations, and levels of motivation are
examples of related aspects that form contemporary conceptualizations of academic
adjustment (Baker, McNeil, & Siryk, 1985; Baker & Siryk, 1999; Gerdes &
Mallinckrodt, 1994). Of course, all students transitioning to tertiary education face an
array of barriers to successfully adjust to their new role as a university student.
However, comparatively little is known about the specific processes of academic
adjustment for sojourner students. Indeed, the literature yields several scales that
measure either the academic adjustment of local students (Pennebaker, Colder, &
Sharp, 1990; Vallerand et al., 1992) or acculturation stress for sojourner students
(Sandhu & Asrabadi, 1994). To our knowledge, there is no existing scale designed
1 It is worth noting that conceptual distinctions have sometimes been made between adjustment as a process, and adjustment as an outcome.
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
4
that crosses this nexus, and thus the major aim of this paper is to develop and validate
a measure of the academic adjustment that is equally suitable for use with sojourner
students and permanent resident students.
The measures of student adjustment that exist are not necessarily valid in a
sample of student sojourners. These scales tend to measure issues specific to local
students, and therefore miss problems that are unique for student sojourners (e.g.,
whether being away from their family and friends impacts their ability to study).
Moreover, the items are typically underpinned with cultural specifities (an
immediately apparent example is "Enjoys living in a dormitory"; Baker & Siryk,
1999. This item is futile in cultures where students lodge in solitude). Given that the
academic experience of sojourner students is qualitatively different to that of local
students, a measure that captures differences in academic adjustment is needed that
can be used with either sojourner students or permanent resident students.
Overview of Studies and Predictions
The academic adjustment scale (AAS) and its psychometric properties are
presented here. After consultation with sojourner students, we derived three
conceptual components to academic adjustment, which are: (a) academic lifestyle:
AAS-L - conceptualized as the fit between the individual and their temporary role as a
student; (b) academic achievement: AAS-A - conceptualized as satisfaction with
academic progress and performance, and; (c) academic motivation: AAS-M -
conceptualized as the drive for the student to continue and complete their academic
sojourn. Each subscale comprises three items, to be used flexibly as a three-
dimensional construct, or as a single factor tapping global academic adjustment. We
tested the psychometric properties of the AAS following these hypotheses:
1. Factor structure hypotheses – We predict the emergence of a three interrelated,
yet distinct factors. In CFA, we expect values of CFI > .90 and RMSEA < .08
(Kline, 1999), and SRMR < .060 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
2. Reliability hypotheses – We predict alpha Cronbach coefficients that are above .70
(demonstrating internal consistency; Kline, 1999)2 , and a test-retest reliability
coefficient that is above .70 (demonstrating temporal stability; Cronbach, 1990).
2 We note that some researchers prefer the alpha Cronbach coefficient to be above.80 as
originally recommended by Cronbach (1990). However, Kline (1999) has argued that the diverse
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
5
3. Validity hypotheses –
a. Convergent validity: Student academic adjustment is related to positive
responses to tertiary education (Pekrun, 2000) and also to increased levels
of motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 2001). We predict the AAS will
positively correlate with the positive affect subscale of the College
Adjustment Test (Pennebaker et al., 1990) and with higher motivation
scores on the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation subscales of the Academic
Motivation Scale (Vallerand et al., 1992).
b. Criterion validity: We predict that higher scores on the AAS will predict
higher levels of satisfaction with student’s grade point average (GPA).
c. Known-groups validity: Given issues typically associated with a sojourn
(i.e., acculturation stress, culture shock, etc.), we expect adjustment scores
from non-sojourner students (Study 1) to be higher than scores reported by
sojourner students (Study 2).
d. Face validity: We predict that student sojourners will rate this scale as
being easier to respond to, and that the content is more relevant for them,
than those measures of academic adjustment that are not designed for
sojourner students.
Study 1
Study 1 aims to demonstrate (EFA) and then confirm (CFA) that the AAS is
comprised of the three expected underlying structures.
Participants and Method
An MTurkTM sample of 355 students (M = 29.55, SD = 8.51, 201 males)
participated in exchange for AUD$0.20. Average length of time studying was 3.54
years (SD = 1.81). The sample largely comprised Indians (n = 171) and Americans (n
= 168), which is typical geographical distribution of a sample recruited on MTurk.
Participants responded to demographic questions followed by the items of the AAS
presented in a randomized order to limit order effects (see appendix).
content that comprises psychological constructs means that a less stringent coefficient is more
appropriate.
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
6
Results and Discussion
Preliminary analysis.
We forced a principle components factor analysis with a varimax rotation to
extract three factors. A review of the scree plot and the Eigenvalues revealed the
expected three-factor solution comparable to the subscales that were identified from
our preliminary discussions with students. In combination, these factors accounted for
72.86% of the variance (see Tables 1 and 2).
-------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
-------------------------------------------------------
Confirmatory factor analysis.
The scale included both positively and negatively worded items; to control for
acquiescent responding, we also modeled an uncorrelated method factor that loaded
onto every item fixed at 1 (Welkenhuysen-Gybels, Billiet, & Cambré, 2003). The
model showed acceptable fit to the data, χ2(21)3 = 59.981, p < .001; CFI = 0.97;
RMSEA = 0.072 (90 % CIs, 0.051-0.094); SRMR = 0.057. (see Figure 1).
---------------------------------------------
FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE
----------------------------------------------
Discussion
In combination, Study 1 provides initial evidence for the internal validity of the
AAS. The EFA and CFA each confirm our factorial structure hypothesis; the three
expected subscales exist as underlying structures of the AAS. Importantly, the
subscales correlate extremely strongly with the scale total and between moderately
3Based on modification indices, we allowed the residuals of item 9 to covary with the residuals
of item 7 and 8. As well as a statistical suggestion, these modifications are conceptually acceptable and
meaningful as they are within the same latent factor.
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
7
and strongly with each other. This study also provides support for our (internal
consistency) reliability hypothesis.
This study provides initial evidence of the AAS is a stable structure for use in
permanent resident students, but has not explored the structure in a sample of student
sojourners. Thus, in Study 2 we recruited a sample of China-born students who were
living in the USA who could validate this scale in a sample of sojourner students. We
also extended the research battery to include factors that would provide external
validity for the AAS.
Study 2
Study 2 aims to provide more evidence for our factor structure hypothesis in a
sample of student sojourners, and to provide evidence for the construct and face
validity of the AAS.
Method
Participants and Procedure.
China-born sojourner students who were studying in the USA volunteered for
Study 2 (N = 191, M = 23.46, SD = 2.67, 79 males). Average length of time studying
in the USA was 4.58 years (SD = 2.24). The majority of students were born in
mainland China (n = 185) and the remainder were born in Hong Kong (n = 6).
Participants responded to demographic questions including an item about GPA
satisfaction on a 5-point scale. Three measures of academic adjustment were
randomly presented. After responding to each measure, and before moving on to the
next, the participants evaluated the usability of the measure; First, they were asked
how applicable the scale was to them (1 [item not applicable to me] to 4 [item very
applicable to me]), then they were asked about the ease of responding to each scale (1
[not easy] to 7 [very easy]). Finally, participants were debriefed and thanked for their
time.
Materials.
The academic adjustment scale was discussed previously in this paper.
The college adjustment test (CAT; Pennebaker et al., 1990) measures
adjustment to college with 19 items about the feelings and thoughts that students had
about their ability to adjust to college in the previous week. The CAT has three
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
8
subscales that reflect the participants’ adjustment-based positive affect (e.g., ‘liked
your roommate(s)’), negative affect (e.g., ‘felt depressed’), and levels of
homesickness (e.g., ‘missed your home’). Responses were on a 7-point Likert-type
scale, with higher scores reflecting a state-based predisposition for the construct being
measured.
The academic motivation scale (AMS; Vallerand et al., 1992) measures aspects
of motivation towards education with 28 items that ask why the participant attends
college. We aggregated scores on the AMS to reflect three aspects of academic
motivation; intrinsic motivation (e.g., ‘To show myself that I am an intelligent
person.’), extrinsic motivation (e.g., ‘In order to have a better salary later on.’), and
amotivation – or the absence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (e.g., ‘I don't
know; I can't understand what I am doing in school.’)4. Students endorsed how much
the presented statements correspond to the reasons that they go to college on a 7-point
Likert-type scale, with a higher score reflecting a higher level of the motivational
aspect being measured.
Results
Descriptive statistics and reliabilities are presented in Table 3. Issues with
normality were corrected using appropriate logarithmic transformations, and all
analyses were conducted on transformed variables. However, for ease of
interpretation, raw scores are reported.
---------------------------------------------
TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE
---------------------------------------------
Factor Analysis.
CFA was conducted on data from student sojourner participants. The means,
standard deviations, and zero-order correlations of each item are also presented in
Table 2. Replicating Study 1, the model showed acceptable fit to the data, χ2(23) =
4 The AMS contains seven subscales. We conducted analyses on the seven subscales, but given
that there were no substantial differences in analyses (and in the interest of parsimony) the three
subscales of intrinsic motivation and the three subscales of extrinsic motivation were each collapsed
into one superordinate scale.
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
9
39.268, p = .018; CFI = 0.971; RMSEA = 0.061 (90 % CIs, 0.025-0.093); SRMR =
0.037 (see Figure 2).
---------------------------------------------
FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE
---------------------------------------------
Validity.
Convergent validity.
The expected correlations existed between the AAS and the measures used for
convergent validity; correlation coefficients are presented in Table 3.
Criterion validity.
Forced entry multiple regression used the subscales of the AAS as predictors of
GPA5. In combination, the subscales accounted for 31% of the variance, F(3, 187) =
27.66, p < .001, Cohen’s f2 = .446. As expected, AAS-A was the strongest predictor of
GPA satisfaction, uniquely accounting for 21.16% of the variance. AAS-L was also
significant predictor, uniquely contributing 1.60% of variance. Regression
coefficients and squared semi-partial correlations are presented in Table 4.
The same regressions were conducted using the subscales of the CAT and the
AMS for comparison. The CAT accounted for a non-significant 1.60% of the variance
in GPA satisfaction, F(3,145) = 1.78, p = .153, and the AMS accounted for a
significant 4.50% of the variance in GPA satisfaction, F(3,157) = 3.59, p = .017, in
which the intrinsic subscale was the only significant predictor (Sr2 = -.22). These
findings both evidence the criterion validity of the AAS and show its predictive
strength relative to other available scales.
---------------------------------------------
TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE
---------------------------------------------
5 A single case on the DV exceeded 3 standard deviations (z = 3.15), and was replaced with x +
2 × SD (i.e., new value = 4.35; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). This replacement did not affect the results
in any substantial manner.
6 Effect sizes for were calculated from the observed R2 using software by Soper (2015) based on
the work of Cohen (1988).
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
10
Known-groups.
There were statistically significant differences between the average scores of the
students in Study 1 and Study 2 on all subscales (academic lifestyle: t(483) = 3.12, p
= .002; academic achievement: t(483) = 14.95, p < .001; academic motivation: t(483)
= 18.14, p < .001). Specifically, sojourner students (Study 2) reported lower levels of
academic adjustment than non-sojourner students (Study 1).
Face validity.
We asked the sample to respond to questions about how applicable each scale
was, and the ease of responding to each scale. Descriptive statistics are presented in
Table 5. Repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted, and revealed that sojourner
students found differences in ease of responding F(2, 147) = 24.25, p <.001, ηp2 = .25,
and in applicability F(2, 147) = 11.54, p <.001, ηp2 = .14 between the AAS, CAT, and
AMS scales. Post-hoc analysis revealed that the AAS and the CAT were easier to
respond to than the AMS (p’s<.001), but that there was no differences in ease of
responding between the AAS and the CAT (p = .49). It was also revealed that the
sample found the content of the AAS more applicable to them than that of the AMS
(p < .001) and the CAT (p = .01), but that the content of the AMS and the CAT were
equally as applicable (p = .47). Thus, the AAS not only has higher levels of face
validity than other measures of academic adjustment, but it is preferred by a sample of
sojourner students.
---------------------------------------------
TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE
---------------------------------------------
Discussion
Study 2 explored the AAS in a sample of student sojourners. The CFA
demonstrated that the three sub-dimensions of the AAS also exist in a sojourner
student sample, circumventing the sampling issue associated with the first study.
Convergent validity was demonstrated by higher scores on the AAS positively
correlated with the positive affect subscale of the CAT and with higher motivation
scores on the AMS. In accordance with the literature (Reeve, 2002; Reeve & Halusic,
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
11
2009), intrinsically motivated resources should be more strongly linked to academic
adjustment and success than extrinsically linked resources. Indeed, our data revealed
stronger correlations between the AAS and the intrinsic AMS subscale than the
extrinsic AMS subscale. Criterion validity was demonstrated by the ability for the
achievement subscale to predict large amounts of unique variance in student
satisfaction with their GPA.
The utility of the AAS is demonstrated by the finding that student sojourners
find the scale more applicable to them and easier to respond to than the alternative
scales in the study. Arguably, this finding could be a result of the brief nature of the 9-
item AAS compared to the 19-items of the CAT and the 28-items of the AMS; we
explored for order effects and none existed. Thus, not only does this finding provide
evidence of the face validity of the scale, it also suggests that this scale is the
preferred measure of academic adjustment for sojourner students. Finally, known-
groups validity was demonstrated with a comparison between AAS scores of
sojourner and non-sojourner students; sojourner students reported lower levels of
academic adjustment than non-sojourner students.
Study 2 reaffirms our factor structure hypotheses in a sample of student
sojourners, and confirms our construct validity hypotheses; however, we have yet to
completely address our reliability hypotheses. Thus, in Study 3 we conduct a repeated
measures study, in which a survey of the AAS was administered to the same sample
of students at two different time points.
Study 3
Study 3 aims to assess the test–retest reliability of the AAS and its three
component scales.
Method and Procedure
We gave a paper and pencil version of the 9-item AAS to 58 undergraduate
students (M = 20.93, SD = 4.71, 45 female) as part of a class exercise in an
undergraduate elective unit in psychology in Australia. They also provided
demographic information. Two weeks later, these students were offered the
opportunity to complete the scale again, and then were reminded again after one more
week. The order of the subscales (but not the items) was randomized.
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
12
Results and Discussion
Scores between time-points were similar, as evidenced by the strength of test-
retest correlation coefficients (rs > .72). Descriptive statistics, correlation coefficients,
and reliability diagnostics are presented in Table 6. These findings suggest that this
scale has temporal stability and internal consistency.
---------------------------------------------
TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE
---------------------------------------------
General Discussion
Limitations
It is worth considering limitations around the samples used across these studies,
which might impact the cross-cultural validity of the scale. For example, Study 2
reported the majority of the validation data from a sample of China-born student
sojourners who might be qualitatively different to student sojourners from other
cultures and permanent resident students in China or other cultures. Given that the
same factor structures exist in samples of local (Study 1) and sojourner (Study 2)
students, this is of limited concern; however, it is worth noting any etic-derived
construct might miss specific and unique features of academic adjustment that vary as
a function of culture. Future research can consider the extent to which this measure
applies to diverse samples.
A strength of this scale is its brevity. However, we acknowledge that this brings
some restriction to the ability of the scale to capture both broad and nuanced
conceptualizations of academic adjustment. For example, academic motivation is
multifaceted and includes both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Deci et al., 1991);
the brief nature of our scale does not allow these to be distinguished. After
acknowledging such limitations, we remain happy with our decision to provide a
concise measure which compromises meticulousness with efficiency.
Conclusions
In this paper we developed a theoretically derived, brief measure of academic
adjustment for specific use with either permanent resident or sojourner students.
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
13
Study 1 used data from local students to demonstrate the existence of the
hypothesized subscales (academic lifestyle, academic achievement, and academic
motivation). Study 2 confirmed that the scale structure also existed with a sample of
students during an international sojourn. With the knowledge that the scale structure
also exists for sojourning students, we then demonstrated additional evidence of the
validity of the AAS as a concise and preferred measure of student sojourner academic
adjustment. Finally, in Study 3, we demonstrated the temporal stability of the scale in
a sample of students from Australia. Thus, across three studies, we confirmed our
factor structure, and presented the evidence supporting our validity and reliability
hypotheses, thus confirming the AAS as a psychometrically stable measure.
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
14
References
Baker, R. W., McNeil, O. V., & Siryk, B. (1985). Expectation and reality in freshman
adjustment to college. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(1), 94-103.
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.32.1.94
Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1999). Student Adaptation to College
Questionnaire:(SACQ); Manual: Western Psychological Services.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology
in Criminal Justice, 46, 5-34. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x
Church, A. T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological bulletin, 91, 540-572.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.91.3.540
Cronbach, L. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing. New York, NY: Happer and
Row publishers.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic
motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of educational
research, 71(1), 1-27. doi:10.3102/00346543071001001
Demes, K. A., & Geeraert, N. (2014). Measures matter scales for adaptation, cultural
distance, and acculturation orientation revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 45(1), 91-109. doi:10.1177/0022022113487590
Gerdes, H., & Mallinckrodt, B. (1994). Emotional, social, and academic adjustment of
college students: A longitudinal study of retention. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 72(3), 281-288. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1994.tb00935.x
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Kline, R. B. (1999). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New
York, NY: Guilford.
Klineberg, O., & Hull, F. W. (1979). At a foreign university: An international study of
adaptation and coping. New York, NY: Praeger.
Oberg, K. (1960). Cultural shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments.
Practical Anthropology, 7, 177-182.
Pedersen, E. R., Neighbors, C., Larimer, M. E., & Lee, C. M. (2011). Measuring
sojourner adjustment among American students studying abroad. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(6), 881-889.
doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.06.003
Pekrun, R. (2000). A social-cognitive, control-value theory of achievement emotions.
In J. Heckhausen (Ed.), Motivational psychology of human development:
Developing motivation and motivating development (Vol. 131, pp. 143-163).
New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
Pennebaker, J. W., Colder, M., & Sharp, L. K. (1990). Accelerating the coping
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(3), 528-537.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.3.528
Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L.
Deci & R. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183-
203). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Reeve, J., & Halusic, M. (2009). How K-12 teachers can put self-determination
theory principles into practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 145-154.
doi:10.1177/1477878509104319
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
15
Sandhu, D. S., & Asrabadi, B. R. (1994). Development of an acculturative stress scale
for international students: Preliminary findings1. Psychological Reports,
75(1), 435-448. doi:10.2466/pr0.1994.75.1.435
Soper, D. S. (2015). Effect Size Calculator for Multiple Regression [software].
Retrieved from http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Experimental designs using ANOVA.
Bston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres,
E. F. (1992). The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic,
and amotivation in education. Educational and psychological measurement,
52, 1003-1017. doi:10.1177/0013164492052004025
Ward, C. (1996). Acculturation. In D. Landis & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of
intercultural training (2 ed., pp. 124-147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993). Where's the" culture" in cross-cultural transition?
Comparative studies of sojourner adjustment. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 24(2), 221-249. doi:10.1177/0022022193242006
Welkenhuysen-Gybels, J., Billiet, J., & Cambré, B. (2003). Adjustment for
acquiescence in the assessment of the construct equivalence of Likert-type
score items. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(6), 702-722.
doi:10.1177/0022022103257070
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
16
The academic adjustment scale
This measure has been designed specifically for measuring academic adjustment, and
has been designed and validated for use in individuals who are local or who are living
abroad to study.
Please indicate the level of endorsement to which each of the following questions
apply to you:
Rarely applies to
me
Occasionally
applies to me
Neither does or
doesn’t apply to
me
Sometimes
applies to me
Always applies
to me
1 2 3 4 5
Academic Lifestyle:
1. I am enjoying the lifestyle of being a university student.
2. I sometimes feel as though my education is not worth time away from my
work or my family. (R)
3. I sometimes worry I do not have the academic skills needed to enjoy being a
student. (R)
Academic Achievement:
4. I am satisfied with the level of my academic performance to date.
5. I think I am as academically able as any other student.
6. I am satisfied with my ability to learn at university.
Academic Motivation:
7. I expect to successfully complete my degree in the usual allocated timeframe.
8. The reason I am studying is to lead to a better life style.
9. I will be disappointed if my studies don’t lead me to the career I want.
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
17
Tables and Figures
Table 1
Descriptive statistics, correlation coefficients, and internal reliability coefficients for
the subscales and scale of the academic adjustment scale (AAS) in Study 1 (N = 355).
AAS-L AAS-A AAS-M M (SD) α
AAS-L - 3.02 (1.03) .80
AAS-A .39 - 3.54 (0.97) .83
AAS-M .44 .62 - 3.48 (1.05) .79
AAS .76 .82 .85 3.35 (0.82) .86
Notes: All correlations are significant at the level of p < .001. AAS-L = academic
lifestyle, AAS-A = academic achievement, AAS-M = motivation; Correlations were
conducted using transformed variables, but for ease of interpretation the
untransformed descriptive statistics are reported.
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
18
Table 2
Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for items in Study 1 (N =
355) and Study 2 (N = 191).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 M (SD)
Study 1
Item 1 - 3.37 (1.22)
Item 2 -.32** - 3.21 (1.29)
Item 3 -.27** .60** - 3.31 (1.26)
Item 4 .39** -.18** -.10 - 3.49 (1.16)
Item 5 .43** -.13* -.02 .55** - 3.68 (1.09)
Item 6 .52** -.08 .02 .57** .74** - 3.66 (1.12)
Item 7 .49** -.17** .10 .44** .59** .62** - 3.56 (1.26)
Item 8 .44** -.13* -.05 .32** .49** .55** .58** - 3.68 (1.21)
Item 9 .36** -.19** -.16** .19** .36** .38** .39** .57** 3.41 (1.29)
Study 2
Item 1 - 2.20 (1.08)
Item 2 -.43** - 3.11 (1.30)
Item 3 -.44** .61** - 2.93 (1.23)
Item 4 .19* -.19* -.17* - 2.41 (1.19)
Item 5 .24** -.17* -.30** .55** - 2.18 (0.97)
Item 6 .30** -.56** -.32** .56** .71** - 2.12 (0.94)
Item 7 .22* -.37** -.15* .36** .43** .47** - 1.76 (0.89)
Item 8 .08 -.13* -.07 .28** .29** .33** .56** - 1.83 (0.56)
Item 9 .14* -.14 -.03 .24** .30** .31** .44** .35** 2.14 (0.97)
Notes: *p < .05, **p < .001. Items 2 and 3 were not reverse scored for these analyses.
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
19
Table 3
Means, standard deviations, validity coefficients, and internal consistency coefficients for the academic adjustment scale (AAS), the college
adjustment test (CAT), and the academic motivation scale (AMS) in Study 2 (N = 191).
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
1. AAS-L -
2. AAS-A .34** -
3. AAS-M .25** .48** -
4. AAS .74** .81** .70** -
5. CAT-positive .26* .24* .26** .34** -
6. CAT-negative -.06 -.02 .15 -.02 .19 -
7. CAT -
homesickness
.02 -.09 -.34** -.18* .43** .67** -
8. AMS-A .10 -.13 -.16* -.15* .02 -.19* -.02 -
9. AMS-I .39** .20* .23* .36** .36** .12 -.11 .00 -
10. AMS-E .34** .08 .20* .28** .20* .10 -.08 -.09 .80** -
11. Age -.06 .01 -.01 -.03 .24* -.05 .12 .14 -.13 -.10 -
12. GPA
satisfaction .29** .53** .19** .45** -.06 .10 .07 -.02 .23* .12 .15* -
13. Years at
University
.06 .01 .10 .09 .02 .01 -.03 -.15 -.08 -.11 .59** .06 -
M 2.73 2.24 1.91 2.29 4.45 3.45 3.73 2.64 4.38 4.50 23.65 2.23 4.58
SD 0.98 0.90 0.71 0.65 1.20 1.18 1.13 1.41 4.43 4.41 2.66 1.04 2.24
α .76 .81 .74 .79 .84 .87 .71 .82 .94 .93 - - -
Notes: *p < .05, **p < .001, significant correlations are presented in boldface. AAS-L = academic lifestyle, AAS-A = academic achievement,
AAS-M = motivation. AMS-A = amotivation subscale, AMS-I = intrinsic motivation subscale, AMS-E = extrinsic motivation subscale.
Descriptive data is non-transformed; correlations conducted on transformed data.
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
20
Table 4
Unstandardised (B) and standardised (β) regression coefficients, and semi-partial
correlations for predictors in a hierarchical regression model predicting satisfaction
with grade point average (GPA) from subscales of the academic adjustment scale.
Notes: CI, confidence interval; GPA = grade point average. The subscales refer to
academic lifestyle (AAS-L), academic achievement (AAS-A), and motivation (AAS-
M). Significant findings are presented in boldface. Final model: F(3,187) = 27.66, p
<.001.
B [95% CI] SE B β p Sr2
Constant 0.82 [0.36, 1.28] 0.23
AAS-L 0.14 [0.01, 0.28] 0.07 0.135 .038 .13
AAS-A 0.62 [0.461, 0.79] 0.08 0.54 < .001 .46
AAS-M -0.17 [-0.37, 0.03] 0.10 -0.12 .091 -.10
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
21
Table 5
Mean scores and standard deviation statistics for reported ease of responding and
applicability of the content of the academic adjustment scale (AAS), the college
adjustment test (CAT), and the academic motivation scale (AMS) in Study 2 (N =
191).
Ease of responding Applicability of content
Scale M SD M SD
AAS 4.60 1.38 2.77 0.72
CAT 3.80 1.58 2.48 0.74
AMS 4.38 1.74 2.62 .882
Note: Ease of responding was measured on a 7-point scale, and applicability was
measured on a 4-point scale.
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
22
Table 6
Descriptive statistics, correlation coefficients, internal reliability coefficients, and
test-retest coefficients for the subscales and scale of the academic adjustment scale
(AAS) in Study 3 (N = 58).
Time 1 Time 2
AAS-L AAS-
A
AAS-
M
AAS M (SD) α M (SD) α r
AAS-L - .43** .28* .85** 3.63
(0.92)
.79 3.70
(0.77)
.75 .72**
AAS-
A
.42** - .22 .65** 3.77
(0.74)
.71 3.81
(0.66)
.71 .74**
AAS-
M
.18 .19 - .54** 4.34
(0.52)
.75 4.29
(0.58)
.70 .94**
AAS .80** .75** .58** - 3.93
(0.51)
.76 3.93
(0.48)
.76 .84**
Notes: *p < .01, **p < .001. Statistics presented above the diagonal are correlation
coefficients for time 1, and statistics presented below the diagonal are correlation
coefficients for time 2; r represents the test-retest coefficient. The subscales refer to
academic lifestyle (AAS-L), academic achievement (AAS-A), and motivation (AAS-
M).
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
23
Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis in a student sample (Study 1), standardized estimates (all p’s < .001) N = 355, χ2(21) = 59.981, p < .001;
CFI = 0.970; RMSEA = 0.072 (90 % CIs, 0.051-0.094); SRMR = 0.057. (CMF = common method factor)
Item1
R2=.635
Item2
R2=.646
Item3
R2=.554
-.707 -.631 .684
Item4
R2=.45
3
Item5
R2=.705
Item6
R2=.763
Achievement
.709 .743 .535
Item7
R2=.673
Item8
R2=.496
Item9
R2=.343
.574 .456 .718
.549 .761
.666
CMF
Motivation Lifestyle
.408 .382
.395 .408 .451 .460 .397 .409 .368
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
24
Figure 2. Confirmatory factor analysis in a sample of student sojourners (Study 2), standardized estimates (all p’s < .001) N = 191, χ2(23) =
39.268, p = .018; CFI = 0.971; RMSEA = 0.061 (90 % CIs, 0.025-0.093); SRMR = 0.037.
Item9
R2=.267
CMF
Item1
R2=.383
Item2
R2=.609
Item3
R2=.620
-.767 -.772 .594
Item4
R2=.428
Item5
R2=.668
Item6
R2=.752
Achievement
.795 .845 .634
Item7
R2=.769
Item8
R2=.412
.603 .479 .850
.468 .578
.398
Motivation Lifestyle
.175 .144
.153 .159 .189 .194 .216 .220 .195
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE
25
Top Related